Another dirty secret that the fur industry does not talk about is the chemical pollution resulting from its nefarious practices. The nitrogen from these [fur] farms also impedes the wintering of trees. This accounts for added frost damage and easier access for insects and fungi into the weakened tree. Fur farms are a source of air pollution as well. Finnish fur farms produce 1500 tons of ammonia a year. In the U.S., most fur farms are concentrated in WI, UT, and MN. A study should be done to measure the nitrate levels in the water found around the fur farms, to study the health of neighboring trees, and to determine the amount of ammonia in the air.

Even more distressing is the method of disposing of the fur farmed animals. After they are skinned, thousands of dead bodies are dumped in landfills or in the woods, polluting nearby waterways and soil.

In addition to the harm caused to people by fur farming waste, neighboring plants and trees are also endangered. And, the high amount of nitrogen from farms impedes the wintering of trees, while the thousands of dead bodies (after they are skinned) are dumped in landfills or in the woods, polluting nearby waterways and soil.

The caustic and toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and chromium used in fur processing are an extreme threat to the environment. In 1991, the EPA fined 2 fur processing plants $1.6 million as a result of pollution they caused. The EPA claimed the waste from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens."

Various chemicals used in the fur industry are potential skin irritants. These include alkalis, acids, alum, chromates, bleaching agents, oils, salt and the compounds involved in the dyeing process, which comprise various types of dyes as well as mordants (a substance used to fix dye in a pelt).

__________________

Acknowledgement is given to the following source of this material:

"The Fur Industry: An Environmental Nightmare" prepared by the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) with the cooperation of In Defense of Animals and The National Activist Network/Earth Alliance Project.

Right now, we're living through climate change, watching the flora and fauna to see what moves on, what arrives and what leaves the scene for good.

It's happened before. In the 17th and 18th century, trappers came to the New World in search of beaver and killed them by the millions. For a half century or more -- from 1860 to the early 1900s -- they were gone from Connecticut entirely.

According to Johan Varekamp, chairman of Wesleyan University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, it's instructive to remember why the Europeans wanted beaver pelts -- not for fashion but for warmth. At the time. Europeans were very cold.

"There's a connection between the climate and the fur trade," he said.

For when the first Dutch and English explorers set foot on the New England and New York landscape, there was a centuries-long cold snap in place. The entire Northern Hemisphere was in the throes of the Little Ice Age.

Climatologists aren't sure what caused this deep chill. It may have begun as early as 1250 AD when the Atlantic ice pack began to grow and lasted until the mid-1800s. It caused famines in Europe and ended the Viking colonization of Greenland -- it was too cold to live there.

In those years, the Thames River in England and the Dutch canals routinely froze over.

Varekamp said that Dutch explorers like Adriaen Block came to North America not merely out of a sense of adventure or conquest, they came for trade. Europeans had trapped their native beavers into extinction by the 1500s and they needed a new source of fur to keep themselves warm. Beavers were plentiful in North America, and trappers killed millions of them for the European market -- so many that there was a glut and their price crashed.

The disappearance of these natural engineers changed the Connecticut landscape -- when their untended dams collapsed, the inland ponds and swamps they created dried up, allowing more rain and snow melt to flow across the landscape. Multiplied a million times over, that change might have influenced the climate as well.

But the beaver trade had other consequences. When the Little Ice Age warmed, there was still a market for beaver pelts -- they made great felt for hats. Europeans learned to use mercury to create felt from the fur and their techniques came to Danbury, the great center of hat-making in North America. Mercury from its plants flowed to the Long Island Sound for decades. It's still there.

Varekamp -- a Dutchman like Block -- finds satisfaction in tieing his present research into the Sound's ecology to the fur trade and the explorations of his fellow countryman.

The climate and animals never exist separately from human activity. Nor do past and present.

"Today, we still may find traces of mercury from the Connecticut 18th- and 19th-century hat making activity in the sediments of the Long Island Sound," Varekamp has written, "which closes the circle back to Adriaen Block, the fur trader from Holland who started it all."

Contact Robert Miller

at bmiller@newstimes.com

========================================

The Fur Industry: An Environmental Nightmare

This report was researched, written and produced by the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, with the cooperation of In Defense of Animals and The National Activist Network/Earth Alliance Project . For more information, contact CAFT at (214) 503-1419 or MINKLIB@aol.com.

Introduction

In the mid-eighties, the fur trade experienced a boom period where sales in the U.S. reached an all time high of 1.8 billion. By the late eighties, however, public education about the treatment of animals by the industry had caused fur sales to plummet. It was about this time that "green awareness", and support for a cleaner environment, was becoming very widespread. In hopes of capitalizing from the trend towards ecological awareness, the beleaguered fur trade began making claims that their product was environmentally friendly.

In this report we will provide evidence that this claim is an outright lie. Advertising standards committees in England, Holland, Finland, Italy, and Denmark have already ruled that the fur industry cannot make those claims, for that would be false advertising. In fact, as this report will show, fur trade organizations have consistently fought implementation of environmental policies which would have effected them. The fur trade is responsible for the extinction of several species (sea mink, etc.), and has pushed others to the edge of no return.

The evidence in this report is the basis for our argument that all of the environmental and conservation organizations in the U.S., or anywhere else for that matter, should take an aggressive anti fur stance. Some are sympathetic to the anti fur cause already. Others, like the National Wildlife Federation, go so far as to defend fur trapping despite the fact that evidence refutes the claims they make in defense of this activity.

This report is being made available to environmental organizations, the news media, activists, and the anyone else interested. Feel free to contact the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade if you have any questions. Our phone number is 214-503-1419, or you can a mail us at MINKLIB@aol.com.

Executive Summary:

The farming of animals for fur, while a profitable venture for fur farms, has proven to be an environmental disaster for the planet. In fact, advertising claims by the fur industry that it is "environmentally friendly" have been deemed false advertising in many European nations.

Fur farming, which requires the storing of mink, fox and other animals by the tens of thousands in small, confined areas -- much like the intensive practices used by chicken, turkey and other factory farmers -- has led to U.S. government efforts to curb the pollution of water, air and soil.

Wisconsin, the largest fur producing state, was even forced to "urge" fur farmers to work with pollution control agencies to clean up their problem in 1991. And, in Finland, the town of Kaustinen had to stop using ground water after the waste from fur farms, and resulting environmental damage, made it dangerous to drink.

In addition to the harm caused to people by fur farming waste, neighboring plants and trees are also endangered. And, the high amount of nitrogen from farms impedes the wintering of trees, while the thousands of dead bodies (after they are skinned) are dumped in landfills or in the woods, polluting nearby waterways and soil.

Fur farming has also caused the ecological balance to teeter. For instance, in Sheboygan, WI, where up to 75,000 mink are kept on one farm, there is, according to a story in 1996 in the local media, a major shortage of mink in the wild. Ironically, there are more mink on that one farm than in the wild. The irony continues in other states, such as Montana, where there is still a hunting season for about 150 lynx, while fur farmers remove lynx from the wild to use as breeding stock on fur farms.

The fur industry is also adding non-native animals to wild. Raccoons in Germany, mink in Iceland, nutria in the U.S. and opossum in New Zealand have escaped farms and established themselves in an environment that does not know how to cope with them. In Oregon, media reports that escaped nutria were devouring crops in the Willamette Valley.

Trapping does tremendous harm to animals in the wild, including endangered ones. Government and independent studies have concluded that as many as 2 of every 3 trapped animals are "non-target." They are considered "trash" animals by the fur industry, and tossed away.

Twenty-one percent of all bald eagles admitted to one rehabilitation project involved leghold trap injuries, and 64 percent of those injuries were fatal. The number of bald eagles destroyed in leghold traps is unknown but considered to be high. In 1973, a U.S. government trapper said 2,500 golden and bald eagles had been accidentally caught in traps in Nevada alone.

Another example is the protected river otter in Pennsylvania, which kept disappearing in the 70's, despite the fact that trapping them was illegal. Accidental trapping was suspected as the problem, and when beaver trapping was reduced (because of falling values), river otter numbers also increased.

Overall, trapping not only wipes out endangered, protected and other non-target animals, but it also

stimulates the spread of disease, further disrupting the ecological balance. Also, since trapping targets

many predators, this leads to an overpopulation of prey species, which then overrun crops and human settlement.

In New Mexico, the deer mice overpopulated (because the coyote population had been decimated by trappers and ranchers) and the resultant hanta virus epidemic killed 56 people. Rabies outbreaks on the east coast have also been blamed on trapping for fur.

The caustic and toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and chromium used in fur processing are an extreme threat to the environment. In 1991, the EPA fined 2 fur processing plants $1.6 million as a result of pollution they caused. The EPA claimed the waste from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens."

Finally, the production of a wild caught fur coat uses 3 times more energy than the production of a synthetic jacket, and studies have found that the production of a fur coat uses 20 times more fossil fuels than the production of a synthetic product, primarily because of the processing of the pelts, feed production, transporting of the pelts to the processor to the auction house to the wholesaler and retailer.

Fur Farming

Intensive confinement livestock facilities have become a hot environmental issue over the last few years. There have been numerous reports of rivers, and other bodies of water, being contaminated by waste run off from animal production farms. While the majority of the attention has been placed on pigs and chickens, waste run off from fur animals is a problem as well. In Wisconsin, the nation's largest mink producing state, members of the state Dept. Of Natural Resources have had to urge fur farmers to work with pollution control agencies to find some way of dealing with wastewater management. This was reported in the Fall 1991 issue of the now defunct American Fur magazine.

This particular problem is caused by keeping thousands of animals in one relatively small area. Unable to run free, these animals have no choice but to let their excrement build up underneath their cages. In a short period of time the waste either soaks into the soil and ends up in our ground water, or it runs off into nearby streams as a result of rain storms. There is an obvious health factor involved with ground water contamination. When the waste runs off into other bodies of water, you have excessive algae growth which is caused by the over abundance of nitrates in the concentrated excrement. This over growth of algae depletes the oxygen in the water which causes aquatic life to die off.

Finland is the world's largest producer of fox. When an American customer buys a fox trimmed coat, chances are that the fur was from a Finnish bred and killed animal. The Finnish National Board of Waters and the Environment said "Environmental problems in the functioning fur farms are still remarkable." One example of water pollution would be the town of Kaustinen where the taking of ground water had to be halted, and the direction of the current changed due to waste dumped by fur farms.

The nitrogen from these farms also impedes the wintering of trees. This accounts for added frost damage and easier access for insects and fungi into the weakened tree. Fur farms are a source of air pollution as well. Finnish fur farms produce 1500 tons of ammonia a year. In the U.S., most fur farms are concentrated in WI, UT, and MN. A study should be done to measure the nitrate levels in the water found around the fur farms, to study the health of neighboring trees, and to determine the amount of ammonia in the air.

Due to industry lobbying efforts, it is hard to prosecute fur farms for environmental contamination. The misnamed Fur Farm Animal Welfare Coalition ( now recognized as Fur Commission USA) even went so far as to lobby governments in the Great Lakes region to maintain low water quality standards so that fur farms wouldn't be identified as major sources of pollution.

Since the fur animal is killed solely for his or her pelt, fur farmers usually dump the entire carcass, as it has no economic worth. The industry has tried to claim that these corpses are used for animal feed, etc. However, many fur animals are killed by poison injection, in which case the corpses could not be used for such a purpose. In most cases, every carcass is disposed of in a landfill, or in the woods, etc. It is rare that a fur farmer goes to any trouble to responsibly dispose of the bodies as there is no economic incentive for him to do so. We have photos available on request of a landfill in MT which is overflowing with mink corpses.

Americans have learned to recognize predators as crucial to the ecological balance of things. People realize that wolves, grizzly bears, etc. serve a crucial role by living at the top of the food chain. Predators help maintain healthy prey animal populations by culling the weak and the sick. The last thing we need is the domestication of an important predator. These animals serve a very vital role in nature, and should not be viewed as any sort of farm commodity. This is part of the reason that the farming of mink and fox is so despicable. It is quite possible that there are more mink captive on fur farms, than running free in the wild.

Sheboygan, WI is a top fur farming center where this statement would certainly hold true. An article in the June 1st, 1996 issue of the Sheboygan Press pointed out that mink populations had dropped to a precarious level. We know of one farm in that area that has over 75,000 mink. That, by itself, easily out numbers the wild population. Consider the fact that mink are a genetically wild animal. Mink have escaped from fur farms in countries where no native mink existed. Iceland, Finland, and England come to mind. These animals have instinctively known what to do, survived, and reproduced. Now these countries have viable mink populations. Now the fact that ranch raised mink can survive when released into the wild is established. If the fur industry is as "green" as it claims to be, then why aren't they helping to re-establish wild mink stocks with some of the 2.5 million animals held captive on American farms?

This especially holds true for the lynx. As few as 150 lynx may exist in the wilds of Montana. Incredibly enough, Montana still has an open lynx season for fur trappers. Some fur trade organizations have fought tooth and nail to keep the lynx from being protected as a threatened or endangered species. Almost every other state in the nation has closed their lynx season. Yet fur farmers have been removing lynx from the wild to use as breeding stock on fur farms. A captive lynx serves no ecological purpose what so ever. Why is the fur trade allowed to take these animals out of the wild, where their numbers are at a critical low point, and breed them on fur farms for a frivolous luxury product? Due to a shift towards lynx fur farming, and the depletion of wild populations for the establishment of breeding stock, we may see the complete extinction of this majestic species in the United States. The continued trapping of this same animal for its fur, and opposition to protective measures by the fur trade, only make matters worse.

Not only is the fur industry taking animals out of their native habitat to stock cat farms, but they are also adding non-native species to areas where they shouldn't be. Raccoons in Germany, mink in Iceland, nutria in the U.S. and opossum in New Zealand are just a few examples of species that have established themselves in areas where they should not be, as a result of the fur trade. Fur farmers would bring these animals in, and then release them when market conditions turned bad. Other times the animals would escape when natural disasters struck, or in the case of the raccoons in Germany, they would escape during a war. These animals are now in areas which developed without anything of their kind present. New Zealand developed with no leaf eating mammal, but now they have a opossum which has no natural predator. This is the case with all of the above listed examples. These animals in turn are blamed for ravaging the area, but it is not their fault that they are there. They were placed in the area by fur farmers.

Over time many of these areas have evolved to a point where these animals are not as much of a problem anymore. Unfortunately this isn't always the case. Either way, this is the result of the fur trade trying to raise animals in areas where the farmed animal was non-native. Some escapes are inevitable, but the fur industry is too irresponsible to take that into consideration. This is an ongoing problem. The 10-15-96 issue of the Oregon Register Guard made mention of nutria that were devouring crops in Willamette Valley, which is an area in Oregon. The article stated that the nutria were there as the result of a failed fur farm experiment. It is still happening, even now. You'd think the fur trade would be more careful, and try to discourage this sort of thing, but all of the past tragedies have not taught them a thing.

Trapping

Trappers are notorious for mistakenly referring to themselves as conservationists. They have even sold this line to the National Wildlife Federation, which has prepared pro trapping literature which is distributed by Woodstream, the largest leghold trap manufacturer in the U.S. The truth is, however, that trapping has a detrimental effect on endangered species, stimulates disease in wildlife, and causes the over population of more prolific animal species.

The National Trappers Association has continually gone to court to fight measures designed to protect threatened and endangered species. They successfully fought to keep a bobcat season in WI, despite the fact that bobcat numbers are at a precarious low in that state. More recently, the NTA has campaigned to keep the lynx, bobcat, and otter off of Section 2 of the Convention In Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), because they didn't want to have to go to the trouble of tagging the pelts. The tagging process is designed to keep count on how many of these animals are being killed. The fur industry thinks that this process is too much trouble, despite the fact that it requires little time and effort.

Despite the fact that very few wolverines still exist in the United States, Montana still has a wolverine trapping season. Even if they were to close the trapping season, wolverine would still suffer at the hands of fur trappers. Wolverine are enticed by baited traps, as they are under the impression that they are about to have a free and easy meal. Therefore, it is not uncommon for a wolverine to be captured by any leghold trap set for any predator.

This leads to a point about the non selectivity of trapping. Any animal can walk into a trap. As many as 2 of every 3 trapped animals is non-target. This means that they are animals which don't have a commercially valuable pelt. They are referred to as trash animals and are thrown away.

Often times endangered species are caught in these traps. The University of Minnesota Raptor Research and Rehabilitation Program conducted a study that showed that 21% of all admissions of bald eagles involved leghold trap related injuries, 64% of these injuries were fatal. It is likely that many more bald eagles were destroyed in leghold traps during that time. Most trappers didn't even know about the Raptor Rehab facility for injured birds, and others may not have brought in trapped eagles for fear of being charged with destroying a protected species.

In 1973 a trapper employed by the federal government released a report that said that 2,500 golden and bald eagles had been accidentally caught in traps in Nevada. 630 died while still in the traps. No doubt others were euthanized later on because of the severity of their injuries.

There is no doubt that traps are non-selective, wipe out millions of non target animals, and destroy endangered and protected species. In the late seventies, it was discovered that as few as 285 to 465 river otter remained in Pennsylvania. Yet otter trapping had been illegal since the 1950's. Accidental captures in leghold traps were thought to be the problem. The otter was eventually saved by two things. First of all the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area opened. This 70,000 acre National Park was closed to trapping. Secondly, beaver prices fell, and so less traps were set in the water, which is were you will find river otters. This led to a decline in accidental otter captures, and a modest recovery by the species.

Trapping helps stimulate the spread of disease. First of all, by thinning the animal populations in the fall, it forces animals to travel greater distances to find a mate in the spring. If an animal is a carrier of disease then he will carry it over a much larger tract of land than he would have had the trapping season been closed.

Secondly, animals in the latter stages of a lethal disease will not be attracted to the lures a trapper uses. Therefore, the chances of catching a healthy, prime animal are greater than those of catching a sick and weak animal. This reduces the genetic strength of the animal population, making them more susceptible to disease.

Thirdly, by eliminating the number of animals, alive trapping causes an increase in the amount of young born in the spring. This is because there is less stress as more food and habitat are available. This causes an increase in the males sperm count, and a decrease in the number of embryos reabsorbed by the females. Therefore, a larger number of young enter the population which have not yet developed immunity to the various diseases they will face. The animals which had developed different immunities are those most likely attracted to a trappers urine based sex lures, as shown above. As was the case in the above mentioned scenario, the genetic strength of the animal population is weakened, due to a disproportionate amount of young who have not had a chance to develop immunity to many diseases. Therefore, this hypothetical animal population is a prime target for a disease outbreak.

Finally, by reducing the number of predators alive, at least until the next breeding season, the number of prey animals alive increases dramatically. This leads to agricultural damage, etc. It can also lead to disease outbreaks. Nature cures overpopulation with disease. This insures the survival of the fittest. When the trapping of predators causes the overpopulation of a prey species, disaster can happen. In New Mexico the deer mice overpopulated and a hanta virus epidemic broke out. This was transmitted to humans and there were approximately 50 fatalities. A strong coyote population would have helped control the deer mice, but trappers and ranchers couldn't have that.

There has been a rabies epidemic raging along the east coast for years. This was caused by the over trapping of raccoons, and then the importation of rabies infected raccoons to the Northeast in a pathetic attempt at restoring the over trapped raccoon population. Another disease outbreak we can thank the fur industry for.

Ironically, trappers use disease control as their main argument in defense of an indefensible activity. Here is what the experts say:

National Academy of Sciences in "Control of Rabies "- "Persistent trapping or poisoning campaigns as a means to rabies control should be abolished. There is no evidence that these costly and politically attractive programs reduce either wildlife reservoirs or rabies incidence. The money can be better spent on research, vaccination, compensation to stockmen for losses, education, or warning systems. "

Fromm Laboratories in "Report on Rabies "- "Trapping to control rabies is considered to be an exercise in futility in the face of a rabies outbreak because the disease itself will limit the population, and clinically rabid animals are rarely caught in traps. "

While trapping takes some species to the brink of extinction, it causes others to overpopulate. Animals such as lynx and wolverine reproduce at a very slow rate. Others are very prolific, and trapping only causes them to breed more. Obviously, trapping causes an immediate decline in the number of living animals. This leads to less competition for food and habitat for the surviving fur bearers. This causes an increase in the male sperm count, and females have greater success with more young born, more often. A study in 7 Texas counties proves this. In areas with no trapping, and coyote populations at a natural level, the average number of coyote pups was 4.3 per litter. On the other hand, in the other counties where intense coyote trapping was taking place, the average litter size was 6.9 pups per litter.

This proves that some species make up for their losses with an increase in breeding results. It proves that trapping for population control is futile for any prolific species, whereas the non-prolific species are so low in numbers anyway, they aren't a nuisance to anyone.

Other studies have shown similar results with fox and muskrats. As trapping leads to a possible over population of fur bearing animals we have more wildlife disease outbreaks, more roadkill, and more agricultural damage.

Trappers trying to control beaver in Quebec's Gatineau National Park found no success. For 20 years they trapped continuously to no avail. When trapping was stopped, and non-lethal control methods were implemented, there was a 75% decline in beaver related problems.

Most species targeted by trappers are predators. This also leads to an immediate animal overpopulation as prey species go unchecked.

It is quite clear that trapping stimulates the spread of wildlife diseases, causes a potential over population of certain species, and is quite detrimental to threatened and endangered species. In addition, is it extremely cruel, and causes extensive injury to trapped animals. The primary purpose of trapping is to fetch pelts for the fur trade. All of these problems come down to the use of fur in luxury garments. It is quite clear that this is a serious problem:

Fur Processing

The fur industry has done studies which show that fur pelts decompose quite rapidly, and therefore, aren't an environmental menace that will over run landfills for years to come. What they aren't telling anyone is that these researchers who conducted these studies apparently used raw fur pelts. While raw pelts will biodegrade, dressed pelts do not. Pelts must be dressed before they can be made into coats. Therefore, the fur industries research is useless, and not even remotely applicable to the issue at hand.

In the dressing of fur pelts, caustic chemicals such as formaldehyde and chromium are used. These are environmental contaminants, and the fur industry has been in trouble for this. In 1991, the EPA fined two fur processing plants for approximately $1.6 million as a result of the pollution they caused. The EPA stated that they "found total non-compliance with hazardous waste regulations" as was quoted by regional administrator Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff. Kim Helper, also with the EPA, claimed that wastes from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens."

Fur production also uses a large amount of fossil fuels. In fact, the production of a fur coat uses 20 times more fossil fuels than the production of a synthetic jacket. A researcher named Gregory Smith, who at the time worked for Ford Motor Co., did the study. The incredible amount of energy used was attributed to production of feed, processing of the pelts, transporting the pelts to the processor, then to the auction house, on to the wholesaler, then the retailer, and so on.

The production of a wild caught fur coat used 3 times more energy than the production of a synthetic jacket. Gas must be used to drive along the trapline, energy must be used to manufacture the traps, etc.

Despite all of these facts presented in this report, the fur industry still claims to be environmentally friendly. However, advertising standards boards have ruled that the fur trade cannot make those claims in Holland, England, Italy, Finland and Denmark because they are completely misleading. It is very clear that the fur industry destroys our natural resources, for the sake of producing luxury garments for the well-to-do. Every person who is concerned with having a clean planet to live on, should stand up and speak out against the fur trade.